Pubdate: Wed, 21 Dec 2005
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Copyright: 2005 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Contact:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175
Author: Mary O'Hara
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

SPLIFF DECISION

Setting Limits On How Much Cannabis People Can Carry Has Led To 
Accusations That The Government's Policy On Drugs Is Too Soft. What 
Do The Experts Think?

Interviews by Mary O'Hara

Peter Stoker Director, National Drug Prevention Alliance Government 
policy is hardly uniformly soft. It's more like jelly with nuts: 
fatalistic on illegal drugs, but questioning cannabis classification; 
gung-ho on tobacco, but intoxicated by 24-hour alcohol. Ignoring far 
higher quantities than the average user would ever carry massages 
crime figures, but even the Met's top cop is worried by this. The 
potential for societal damage with this proposal, coupled with supine 
interdiction processes, is greater than any relaxing on cannabis 
alone. Government has been persuaded to take what was, even five 
years ago, a broadly sound, all-party supported approach, and then 
unravel it into libertarianism disguised as expediency.

The ability to intervene with early-stage users and divert them to 
healthier avenues is lost; treatment is more about maintaining use 
than ending it, despite addicts calling for the latter; education has 
been subverted into telling you how to use; prevention has been 
vaporised. Broadcast that use is inevitable, and what happens? More 
people use. Great news if you're a dealer, but terrible if you're a 
parent trying to raise healthy children. What is needed is a rational 
extension of government's still-retained goal for treatment: 
abstinence. This is not a pious ideal. Evidence-based prevention, 
education, law and order, intervention and treatment should have 
avoidance of drug use as the core goal.

Rosie Brocklehurst Director of communications, Addaction

The government has been very tenacious and pragmatic in the way it 
has steered drugs policy. Those for whom criticism of government 
comes easy should realise that this is an evolving field and even the 
experts are learning all the time about how to make treatment better. 
Treatment and prevention not only help individuals but also benefit 
the family, the community and the wider society. I think in this 
respect the government has been patient, even visionary, while 
remaining grounded in realpolitik.

Deep understanding is what makes all the difference, and I think that 
work we do on the frontline has to be where we go further. So don't 
cut the money on the frontline - find it elsewhere. Trust the sector 
and free us up to deliver. Expect and encourage more mergers of 
treatment agencies, and recognise that, as we deal with one 
generation of users, a new generation is arriving, and new drugs are 
on the horizon - for example, crystal meth.

Vivienne Evans Chief executive, Adfam

We estimate that problematic drug and alcohol use within the family 
has a negative impact on more than 3 million people. The disparity 
between need and availability of support highlights the difficulties 
facing families battling the isolation and social stigma that goes 
with drug problems. Families are usually the first victims of the 
crime, abuse and stress that can often accompany substance misuse. 
Unprecedented resources are being provided by government to deal with 
the drug problems that the country faces.

However, families remain a relatively marginalised group within the 
government's drug and alcohol strategy. Services set up to meet the 
needs of families are patchy at best. But engaging families in the 
process can be pivotal in achieving successful outcomes, turning the 
government's investment into real life-changing results for 
problematic drug users and their families. It is hoped the next drug 
strategy will incorporate dedicated resources and services to meet 
families' needs.

Martin Barnes Chief executive, DrugScope

The government is serious about reducing problem drug use and its 
many harms. There is no room for complacency, but the progress being 
made, particularly on drug treatment, is probably one of the 
government's best-kept secrets. There is record spending on drug 
treatment, with a 40% increase next year. The target of doubling 
numbers in treatment may be met two years ahead of schedule, but much 
more needs to be done to improve treatment quality and effectiveness.

The upward trend in drug use has stabilised, with promising signs of 
falling use among children and young people, particularly for 
cannabis and some class A drugs. The government has introduced 
restrictions on bail for drug-related offences, compulsory drug 
testing on arrest and, should the test be positive, a requirement to 
undergo an assessment. The aim is to get more offenders, or potential 
offenders, into treatment. Cannabis reclassification was not a "soft" 
response, but based on evidence of its relative harm and the strategy 
to concentrate on even more harmful drugs such as heroin, cocaine and 
crack. The predicted increase in cannabis use has not happened. 
Indeed, the reverse has happened.

Danny Kushlick Director, Transform

On page six of the UK updated Drug Strategy 2002 it says: "We will 
maintain prohibition. . ." In 2003, the prime minister's strategy 
unit produced a report for the cabinet that showed that, far from 
tackling drugs, its policy of enforcing the drug laws was actually 
creating many of our drug problems. As a result of supply-side drug 
law enforcement, heroin and cocaine are worth more than their weight 
in gold and, consequently, organised criminals run the market. We 
have some of the toughest drug laws in Europe, the highest levels of 
drug use in Europe, the highest per capita prison population in 
Europe. Nearly a fifth of UK prisoners are drug law offenders, and 
more than half are there as a result of committing acquisitive crime 
to support a habit.

The crime costs associated with prohibition are estimated at UKP16bn 
a year. Prohibition creates crime and criminal opportunities, 
increases public ill-health and drug-related dangers (especially for 
young people), wastes billions of pounds, contributes to political 
instability in producer countries, and infringes human rights. We 
should plan an exit strategy from the global "war on drugs" and 
replace it with a more effective system of legal control and regulation.

Edward Garnier Shadow home affairs minister

I sit as a part-time judge and most of the people that come in front 
of me are there, one way or another, because of drugs. Drugs are the 
single biggest factor behind urban crime. Legalisation is often put 
forward as a solution, but it is not as simple as that. The people 
who suffer the consequences of drug abuse would suffer it whether 
drugs were legal or not. Unless every country in the world legalised 
drugs, decriminalisation in this country alone would make things worse.

Finding solutions to drug abuse requires more serious action than 
changing classifications. We need to get to grips with why people 
turn to drugs. Helplessness, boredom, the breakdown of the family and 
of communities are all contributory factors. A considered and mature 
review of our drugs policy should be uppermost in our plans for the 
future of the Conservative party. If we want a government that really 
will cut crime and the causes of crime, getting a grip on drug abuse 
and addiction is absolutely crucial.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom